X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 19:15:54 +0200
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT gnu DOT org>
Subject: Re: About new DJGPP v2.04 beta
In-reply-to: <CAA2C=vAk6h+ko+RRgnp-JXX68G1cJKxGxp=ACQCNcdZcBymgQw@mail.gmail.com>
X-012-Sender: halo1 AT inter DOT net DOT il
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Message-id: <83d2usznat.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <5140A042 DOT 9050805 AT iki DOT fi> <CAA2C=vB08rhgRyL-WX+vgXQKxkh4-bXxYZRG+8NyL1HzaUKafA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <CAA-ihx-wzMncQTikJZ2yFuSCzz4ebBUneNcm5iO4DygvL519aw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <CAA2C=vAk6h+ko+RRgnp-JXX68G1cJKxGxp=ACQCNcdZcBymgQw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 08:28:10 +0200
> From: Ozkan Sezer <sezeroz AT gmail DOT com>
> 
> libc is getting larger? Yes.  The problem is we are statically linking
> to it and the final programs are larger.

Do you have any numbers?  It would be good to know how large is
"larger" for some real-life program.

> Besides, you know that you are not working with symlinks

How do you know that?  If you use Bash, or some other program built
with 2.04, they might create symlinks, and then you do have them.

And even if you don't have even a single symlink, how much overhead do
you get due to low-level functions probing for them?  Again, some
performance numbers would be good.  E.g., how much longer does it take
'find' to traverse a given tree, when compiled with 2.04 vs 2.03?

> and you don't need directory emulation,

What's that?

> and so forth, and adding in utterly unneeded overhead makes one (at
> least me) feel embarrassed somehow.

There's nothing to be embarrassed.  DJGPP is a Posix-compatible
environment, so having Posix features is natural.